Ramifications of Roe v. Wade

Aaron Mullen recently published his note entitled The Twisted Sisters of Probate: How the Uniform Probate Code and Supreme Court Precedent Create Incentives for Abortion, 23 Regent U. L. Rev. 403 (2010-2011). Excerpts from the introduction to the note are below:

The ramifications of Roe v. Wade extend far beyond women’s privacy issues. In Roe, the Supreme Court held that a woman had the constitutional right to an abortion. Anything less would have infringed on her privacy.

But today the holding does more than merely allow a right of privacy. When the holding is combined with the Uniform Probate Code (“UPC”), the two can actually provide financial incentives for women to abort. These financial incentives can be substantial.

****

This Note provides answers for states that question how they can stop forcing women…to make such difficult decisions. Part I explains how the combination of Supreme Court jurisprudence and the UPC can force women to choose between their babies and their pocketbooks. Part II provides a suggestion for a constitutionally viable solution to what no longer needs to be a dilemma. This suggested solution is a simple modification of the UPC to see to it that women are not forced to make this choice.

This Note is different from other abortion articles for several reasons. First, it is not about babies’ equal protection. Not one of the premises in this Note is dependent upon equal protection. This Note is also not about a state’s interest in promoting life. This Note is about the way states that have adopted the UPC create an incentive for abortion in specific circumstances. Therefore, this Note is about an interest much greater than promoting life—a state’s interest in refraining from promoting death.